beta
Text
Each judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
1. The punishment sentenced by the first instance judgment (two years of imprisonment) and that sentenced by the second instance judgment (six months of imprisonment) shall be too unreasonable;
The Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that “one gate and one cellular phone set aside by the Defendant, which is far away from the ground, has not been stolen,” as to the larceny as stated in Article 2660 of the facts charged in the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that “the Defendant’s defense counsel” was erroneous. The Prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to the effect that possession of the thief’s charge is changed from the trial to the thief’s embezzlement, and this Court permitted it. As such, the above assertion is not determined.
On the other hand, the defendant argued that there was only one copy of the victim F's card in the trial, and even if it is based on the misconception of facts, considering the defendant's statement in the police interrogation protocol as of June 15, 2018 and the statement in the receipt (F) of the police interrogation protocol as of June 15, 2018, it can be recognized that the defendant had only one wall lost by the victim F and one cellular phone. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.
2. On the defendant, the first and second original judgments were sentenced to each of them, and the defendant filed an appeal against them. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the first and second original judgments against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act should be sentenced to one punishment.
In addition, in the trial of the court of first instance, the prosecutor deleted "4,00 won in cash" from among the larcenys as stated in the charge No. 2660 of the 2018 High Court's 2018 High Court's 201Hun-Ba260, and applied for changes in the bill of amendment to the effect that "thief is embezzled" is changed to "the thief.
Therefore, the first and second original judgments shall be maintained.